From dev-return-71653-apmail-geronimo-dev-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Wed Feb 04 14:56:34 2009
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 68929 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2009 14:56:34 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2009 14:56:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 98935 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2009 14:56:34 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 98469 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2009 14:56:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help:
list-unsubscribe:
List-Post:
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
List-Id:
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 98460 invoked by uid 99); 4 Feb 2009 14:56:33 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:56:33 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jaydmchugh@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.27 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.92.27] (HELO qw-out-2122.google.com) (74.125.92.27)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:56:25 +0000
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so707846qwd.25
for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:56:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from
:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to
:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Zwp4zlYgSspuumdwRVckD5qhDRdKS13vyffKtGMFnZA=;
b=HRmlr15KFmbuPLlg21GER+NxX2lXECwmL+BbZn5G9VaHeo1sk5aWb5VCIQGr19IuCO
uefvfRBXsmHMZsXPhH8+ZPJmlqWHGg1GK+NF5gLdCqDcvCOTQwrKXkXGmcnhPWqoCnio
e+j9V7hRw0qUG4Tc9miU6+V9ba1hVp8xDnAZo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
b=aEPd97vPYJr1tmeccWkDYt6QaVJm627/nIC0i2ghz88LXOrdGBLHAeZadHcDx0bDnm
8zka0h9IPDvL67A7AhQWb8u1MsexGC/DUVh8OTgIjnITd7jF7OsO34Mgah5Z1pUD2AEZ
RkAc+hQk3en6W+zXyJGC8sOYPTGDGJ32hLDOw=
Received: by 10.214.113.1 with SMTP id l1mr5830800qac.259.1233759364720;
Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?172.16.3.2? (198.pubint.com [66.84.139.198])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm4395449qwk.42.2009.02.04.06.56.03
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4989AC7A.8070601@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:55:54 -0600
From: "Jay D. McHugh"
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release?
References: <5eb405c70902031143h2d673801ib626e5b899d8a43c@mail.gmail.com> <4988A276.1020107@earthlink.net> <4988AA93.5090505@apache.org> <4988AE43.20109@earthlink.net> <4988BC2F.5030103@gmail.com> <4988C14B.7040704@earthlink.net> <4988CD99.8020102@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4988CD99.8020102@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
All of the 2.0.3 build issues are fixed.
I will try building 2.0.3 with XBeans 3.5 now and let you all know what
happens.
If it will build, then I might take a look to see whether I can figure
out what changes are necessary for OpenEJB 3.0.1 to use XBeans 3.5 too.
Jay
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> The problem is with the version of ASM that is brought in when using a
> higher version of XBeans.
>
> OpenEJB is using a method that has been removed:
> org.objectweb.asm.ClassReader.accept
>
> And Geronimo (already - not counting XBeans 3.5) is using classes that
> have been removed:
> LinkResolver
> UniqueDefaultLinkResolver
>
> Jay
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> Thanks for the info Jay and for doing some more digging.
>>
>> I don't really have a strong desire to push everything to xBean 3.5. I
>> was just trying to eliminate the use of multiple xBean versions as this
>> could potentially cause problems (and confusion) for our users.
>>
>> It looks like we originally moved up to xBean 3.5 (actually
>> 3.5-SNAPSHOT) to resolve a jca context issue (Geronimo-4375). However,
>> it looks like it was soon discovered that there were issues with the
>> OpenEJB, ASM and xBean versions in G. As a result ... we ended up
>> reverting back to an older ASM and xBean 3.3 for finder and reflect
>> while keeping the newer xbean-naming 3.5 so that the original issue was
>> still resolved. That seems to be working and is perhaps the best
>> approach. I was just concerned about using the various xBean versions
>> in our Geronimo 2.1.4 server. Perhaps using the various xBean versions
>> is still the best thing to do here. I didn't realize that there were
>> core issues in OpenEJB attempting to use anything greater than 3.4.1.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> If we want to get OpenEJB 3.0.1 to move up to XBeans 3.5, then I think
>>> that we'll need to chip in to resolve the problems that pop up when you
>>> use a version greater than 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> That was the highest version (available at the time) that could be used
>>> in the OpenEJB 3.0 branch without causing errors.
>>>
>>> I'll try switching to XBeans 3.5 (after the build I am in the middle of
>>> finishes) and let you all know if it goes through cleanly.
>>>
>>> My feeling is that it won't though.
>>>
>>> Also, I have been trying to get a 'final' Geronimo 2.0.x release put
>>> together and will need OpenEJB 3.0.1 for that (3.0 no longer builds
>>> because the artifacts for XBeans changed groupIds).
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> I was relaying the information second-hand ... so it's very possible I
>>>> got it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like there is a dependency xBean in OpenEJB ... but it's 3.4.1
>>>> rather than 3.3 (as we have in the branches/2.1). So, perhaps if we can
>>>> convince OpenEJB 3.0.x to xBean 3.5 we can then make the references
>>>> consistent in our 2.1 branch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>>> I don't see any dependencies on Xbean in OpenJPA 1.0.x or 1.2.x.
>>>>> Maybe you're thinking about OpenEJB?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Donald
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>> I agree we should get a 2.1.4 release out ... and you certainly have
>>>>>> my vote for release manager!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing I would add to the list is to get our xBean references
>>>>>> to a consistent versions. I noticed this as I was updating
>>>>>> branches/2.1 and trunk to pull in the newly released xBean 3.5. In
>>>>>> branches/2.1 we have a mix of 3.3 dependencies (finder and reflect)
>>>>>> and 3.5 dependencies (naming). I've been told that this was due to
>>>>>> OpenJPA dependencies on 3.3. Now that we are pulling in a new
>>>>>> OpenJPA release we will hopefully be able to update everything to use
>>>>>> xBean 3.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's time for Geronimo 2.1.4 release. We've had a lot of
>>>>>>> important fixes since 2.1.3 and we should get them out to our users.
>>>>>>> And if we agree, I would also like to volunteer to be a release
>>>>>>> manager for this release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at the current status for 2.1.4 there are still a few things
>>>>>>> that we need to do before we can go ahead with the release. I updated
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.4+Release+Status
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page with some of these items. If there are any open bugs that _need_
>>>>>>> to be fixed for 2.1.4 or if I missed anything in that list please
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> update that wiki page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jarek
>>>>>>>